While the primary and official language in the United States is English, many students in the United States' educational system cannot efficiently communicate in spoken English, whether because they are fluent in another language or because they are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing. For obvious reasons, it is critical that such students have the ability to receive information from and/or communicate with an instructor or other educational provider. Students who have difficulty understanding the English language and/or hearing may miss information when new concepts and vocabulary are introduced, when group discussions become faster-paced, or when they are positioned a substantial distance from the speaker. This is true not only with respect to classroom or live lectures, but also in the context of slideshow and other presentations with voice-over or otherwise audile narration.
In short, these students are excluded to varying degrees from obtaining the full educational benefits afforded to their English-speaking and/or hearing counterparts. The costs associated with excluding these students from access to information are significant in terms of not only such students' unrealized potential, but also in terms of legal liabilities including discrimination and, at least with respect to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing individuals, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Conventionally, a variety of methods have been employed in an attempt to provide such students with reasonable access to course curriculum. Primarily, hand-held and PC-based devices are available that use translation software to convert text from one language to another. However, these devices are often difficult to use, inaccurate, and only able to process written information. Moreover, such conventional computer-based translation services are extremely impersonal.
Other accommodation methods include Closed Captioning, known as CC, as well as Transcription for audio components in the classroom. While these types of services are successful at conveying content, they fall short in providing access to the information when there is a time constraint associated with the accommodation request. When a CC or Transcription accommodation request is made, but the university is unable to provide the request in a timely manner due to the backlog of requests, the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students find themselves at a disadvantage in the educational environment once again.
The limitations of hand-held and PC-based devices are especially problematic for interpreting audio content to sign language (e.g., American Sign Language (ASL)) because sign language is a visual language that employs hand gestures, body language, and facial expressions to convey words and grammar rather than using sound for meaning as do spoken languages. Additionally, sign language is a body-oriented language and every person's body gestures are different as they make the movements that comprise a “word meaning” in sign language.
At least with respect to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students, these issues have been at least partially addressed by providing a live interpreter at the facility to assist with the provision of the general educational curriculum. However, similar to the aforementioned hand-held and PC-based devices, there are numerous challenges associated with this approach and, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing students to have limited access to the course curriculum and related materials. Primarily, the quality of educational interpreting is a critical aspect that is inextricably linked to the academic outcomes of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students who use interpreters. Indeed, providing a quality interpretation plays a critical role in the student's academic success. Many factors affect the quality of interpretation provided. In addition to having a firm knowledge of the languages involved and the ability to interpret in a fast-paced setting, educational interpreters must also have a combination of interpreting performance skills, a knowledge of education, and—at least with respect to grades K-12—a sufficient knowledge of child development across the relevant age span.
Furthermore, with conventional applications, an educational interpreter must also have an appropriate knowledge of the underlying subject matter to be conveyed. For example, in vocal and sign languages, various vocabularies exist within different professional and/or subject matter areas. To be successful and effective, an educational interpreter must be familiar with and proficient in the vocabulary of a particular subject matter in which they are working—for instance, have a certain degree of familiarity with medical, legal, scientific, or other specialized vocabulary—such that they can effectively convey the appropriate meaning to the students. However, qualified educational interpreters may be difficult to come by, especially when the interpreter must be physically present within a classroom. Educational institutions are limited to using those interpreters located within commutable distance of the relevant campus, as well as the ones who are able to reach the campus at the specific times the classes are being offered. Additionally, and especially with respect to employing qualified interpreters, providing live interpretation in a classroom setting is cost-prohibitive. As Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students are typically in the minority, it often not financially feasible for an educational institution to consistently provide live access to an educational interpreter. Accordingly, although live interpreting is advantageous, it fails to resolve the basic problems that exist with respect to providing equal access to course materials and information—namely, providing a quality interpretation in a cost-efficient manner.
Another conventional approach to providing interpretation services for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing individuals is through use of real-time video conferencing. Such services are typically billed by the minute and require specialized videoconferencing equipment. Accordingly, the system does not lend itself to use in an educational environment where lectures typically last anywhere from between thirty minutes to upwards of an hour and are often provided in facilities that do not have computers or an Internet connection, much less specialized videoconferencing equipment. As such, this system has not proven to be cost-effective, nor is it widely available in educational settings.
Additionally, such video conferencing systems are limited to support real-time, two-way communication between the speaker and the Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing individual via an interpreter. In contrast, academic presentations having an aural component are typically delivered either by way of one-way communication (e.g., with an individual lecturing or as a slideshow accompanied by aural voice-over narration) or multi-way communication (e.g., a teacher engaging multiple students in a question/answer format). Two-way video conferencing systems are simply not designed for use under such circumstances. For example, due to the rapid nature of most lectures and/or the quick dialogue between classmates and/or student and teacher, real-time interpretation/translation would be cumbersome, likely be quick to fall behind the flow of speech or dialogue, and not be one hundred percent accurate—especially where the subject matter of the lecture and/or academic dialogue is specialized. This is true not only for ASL interpretation services, but also with respect to the interpretation of such aural presentations between spoken languages. Accordingly, the video conferencing systems and video relay services conventionally available are not capable of providing non-fluent or Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students with sufficient access to the academic information provided to their hearing counterparts and/or those fluent in the delivery language.
Further exacerbating the problem of providing equal access to students who are unable to communicate effectively in the delivery language and/or understand aurally delivered materials, in recent decades, a significant shift has been seen from classroom-based education towards computer-based curriculum delivery. The advent of networked computers and communications, as well as the availability of electronic networks such as the Internet, has enabled students and educators to supplement—and in some cases entirely replace—curriculum delivered in a physical classroom setting with the exchange of information through online-based lectures, presentations, question and answer interaction sessions, and other related online modalities. While, as previously noted, interpreters can be a conduit for information flow in a classroom setting, there is as yet no workable solution with respect to providing those students who are Deaf and/or Hard-of-Hearing or not fluent in the delivery language with equal access to online curriculum delivered aurally. For example, PowerPoint or other presentations that are made available to students over a course and/or learning management system are not entirely accessible to Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students—or students who do not understand the delivery language—where such presentations are accompanied by an aural voice-over narration component.
Accordingly, systems and methods are needed that are capable of providing Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students, and those students who are not fluent in the delivery language, with equal access to educational course materials in an accurate and accessible manner. Ideally, such systems and methods should be cost-effective and easily executable by educational institutions such that they can be interfaced with any existing or legacy network-based systems that students access to obtain various types of information (e.g., class schedules, curriculum, class assignments, etc.).